Legal validity of commercial books
Before discussing this rule, it is necessary to define a criminal judgment. It refers to a decision issued by a court legally constituted in a dispute brought before it in accordance with the law, whether the decision is issued on the subject matter of the dispute, on part of it, or on an incidental matter arising from it.
Dr. Mahmoud Naguib Hosni defined a criminal judgment as the judge’s declaration of the will of the law, whereby a specific legal consequence is determined in relation to a particular fact and becomes binding upon the parties to the case.
As for the legal meaning of res judicata:
This term arises when a matter has already been presented before the judiciary and has been decided by a judicial ruling. Such a ruling acquires the authority of res judicata if the same matter is presented again before the courts. In other words, the judgment is authoritative with respect to what it has decided, is deemed to conform to the truth, and the parties may not resort again to the courts concerning the matter that has already been adjudicated.
This leads us to the rule of the res judicata effect of a criminal judgment on a civil claim:
The purpose of this rule is to prevent the renewal of disputes and the contradiction of judgments. To achieve this purpose, the same dispute in which a judicial ruling has been issued must not be presented again before the courts, because it has already been decided.
It should be noted that civil judgments do not have res judicata effect before criminal courts. If a person files a civil claim before the Public Prosecution initiates a public criminal action, and the civil court decides the claim by a final and conclusive judgment, then the public criminal action is later brought before the criminal court regarding the same crime from which the damage arose, the judgment issued in the civil claim does not have the force of res judicata before the criminal court with regard to the occurrence of the crime and its attribution to its perpetrator.
This was confirmed by Article 333 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which states: “Judgments issued by civil courts shall not have the force of res judicata before criminal courts with regard to the occurrence of the crime and its attribution to its perpetrator.”
It appears from the foregoing that the rule of the res judicata effect of a criminal judgment on a civil claim is considered an exception. For a criminal judgment to have res judicata effect before the civil judiciary, the criminal judgment must be final and must decide the subject matter of the criminal case. This is confirmed by the provisions of the Jordanian Code of Criminal Procedure in the following articles:
Article 331 provides:
Unless there is another provision, the criminal case is extinguished, with respect to the person against whom it is filed and the facts attributed to him, by the issuance of a final judgment therein acquitting him, declaring non-liability, dismissing the case, or convicting him. If a judgment is issued on the subject matter of the criminal case, it may not be reconsidered except by challenging that judgment through the methods prescribed by law, unless otherwise provided.
Article 332 provides:
A criminal judgment issued by the criminal court on the subject matter of the criminal case, whether acquittal, non-liability, dismissal, or conviction, shall have the force of res judicata before civil courts in cases that have not yet been finally decided, with respect to the occurrence of the crime, its legal characterization, and its attribution to its perpetrator. A judgment of acquittal shall have this force whether it is based on the absence of the accusation or on insufficiency of evidence. However, it shall not have this force if it is based on the fact that the act is not punishable by law.
Accordingly, the res judicata effect of the criminal judgment on the civil case exists even where the parties and the subject matter differ. It is sufficient that the facts on which both the criminal and civil claims are based are the same. It is a settled principle that criminal judgments have absolute authority, meaning that they are binding on all persons because they relate to individuals’ freedoms and safety, which is a matter affecting the interest of society, even if the civil claim is brought against a person who was not represented in the criminal case.
The Jordanian Court of Cassation confirmed this rule in many of its decisions, including Decision No. 1654/2013 (Civil), which stated:
In this regard, we find that, after the issuance of the criminal judgment, the civil court in its case does not have complete freedom in assessment and judgment. Rather, it finds itself somewhat bound and restricted by what the criminal court has previously ruled. Judicial practice is settled that the civil court may not disregard what the criminal judgment has decided in a certain and necessary manner regarding the existence of the criminal act, the legal characterization of that act, its legal description, and its attribution to its perpetrator. This is what Article 332 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has established.
It follows from this article that if the criminal judge pronounces a conviction and imposes a specific penalty or precautionary measure on the person to whom the crime is attributed, the civil judge may not reopen discussion regarding whether the crime occurred, its legal characterization, the validity of attributing it to the convicted person, or that person’s responsibility for it. All these matters must be accepted and considered established facts that are not open to doubt.
Although legal doctrine discusses the basis of the authority of res judicata, with some viewing it through the theory of a legal presumption and others through the theory of a substantive rule, doctrine and jurisprudence have tended to consider res judicata a substantive rule.
From the foregoing, we find that this rule affects a civil claim that is still pending before the judiciary in the following respects:
• If the criminal case is filed before the pending civil claim is decided by the civil court, the civil court must stay its decision on the civil claim until a final judgment is issued in the criminal case. This is expressed by the rule that “the criminal case suspends the civil case.”
• If a final judgment is issued in the criminal case before a final judgment is issued in the civil claim, the criminal judgment shall have authority or binding force over the civil claim. This is expressed by the rule of the res judicata effect of the criminal judgment on the civil claim.